impossible for gentlemen of the counties who
have not been familiar with the amount of im-
portant and pressing business there, adequate-
ly to understand. It is in behalf of that commercial
and mercantile interest that I speak.
I say that there business is embarrassed, it is
accumulated; and it is impossible for them
to discharge it. The utmost diligence on the
part of the judges is insufficient to clear their
dockets, It is so in both courts. In one of
the courts the equity business is effectually
blocked; cases standing there which have
been standing there for years and years) so
that it is impossible to get equity business
transacted. I trust this convention will give
the city of Baltimore more judicial force. They
have done it for the counties, not to the ex-
tent the committee reported and thought desirable,
but to some extent. If justice is to
be administered in the city of Baltimore they
must do it there, if they do not consent to
do it, justice cannot be administered in those
courts.
Mr. ABBOTT. I should like to have the
gentleman explain to us how it is that two
courts can transact more business than four.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I fear my colleague has
not read the report of the committee. If he had
he would have discovered in the twenty-eighth
and thirtieth sections that it is made competent
for the three judges of each court, provided for
in this section, so to "apportion and distri-
bute the business of their courts as shall
best facilitate the despatch of business and
promote the ends of justice." To illustrate :
that it may be evident that one court with
three judge's acting in that way may do more
than two courts sitting with one judge each
according to the other system. On the bench
of the superior court there are three judges.
They have the jurisdiction of alt civil matters,
equity not being included; that is, appeals from
magistrates' decisions, and all original suits
brought from one hundred dollars upward.
In the distribution of their business they may
assign one judge who shall go on trying ap-
peals from magistrates' decisions; they may
assign one judge who shall go on trying cases
where the amount in dispute ranges from
one to five or to seven hundred dollars; and
the third judge may hear those cases above
five or seven hundred dollars. So that prac-
tically the superior court may be sitting in
three places and transacting business by three
judges at once. Thus you get what is under
the other system a force of three judges. Un-
der the other system, you have given this ju-
risdiction to two courts; but you have only
given it to two men, who consequently, to
do their utmost, can only sit in the trial of
causes in two places at once; while under
the system reported by the committee, they
tan hear them in three places at once.
Precisely the same is it in the circuit court,
in which is placed the equity jurisdiction of
the present circuit court, and the jurisdiction |
of the present criminal court. For the three
judges together have power to apportion and
distribute the business among themselves,
They may make such an apportionment as
to sit in three places at the same time; while
under the amendment as proposed, this juris-
diction and labor is placed in two courts, but
confined to two judges, and they can only sit
in two places.
Mr. ABBOTT. The effect of it will be to give
us six courts instead of four.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE, Practically; but not all
the time. it provides that where a suitor
chooses, and where he thinks that one judge
is not sufficient, be may demand a bench, and
require that at least two of the judges shall
sit in the trial of the case, so that he may have
the benefit of two judges if there are import-
ant legal points involved. But the great bulk
of the time there may be six men sitting in
effect in as many different courts, but really
in two.
Mr. THOMAS. I desire to say a few words
in relation to what has fallen from my col-
league. As has been stated by him, the sys-
tem proposed by this amendment is the present
system, as practiced in the city of Baltimore
establishing four courts. The reason which is
given by the gentleman for the increase of
judges in the courts of Baltimore city, is that
the courts, as established by the report of the
committee, can greatly facilitate business,
and that the courts now established cannot
possibly perform the duties required of them.
I have only to say in reply to that that the
superior court of Baltimore city, having now
jurisdiction over all sums where the debt or
damage claimed is above five hundred dol-
lars, if there are a great many cases on the
dockets of the superior court, it is not owing
to the jurisdiction of the court. I will ven-
ture to assert that if any gentleman of this
convention will go into the superior court on
the first three days of any term, and listen to
the calling of the docket, Ire will find that
two-thirds of the cases are postponed or con-
tinued by the lawyers themselves. .The judge
of that court has repeatedly complained in
my hearing that the lawyers will not come
up and try their cases. But we propose by
further amendments to avoid the superior
court having so much business, by increasing
the jurisdiction of the court <of common pleas
from five hundred up to at thousand dollars,
which will throw all these small cases, which
are nine-tenths of the case's which give trou-
ble in the superior court, into the court of
common pleas.
How then does the court of common pleas
stand in relation to its business? I will ven-
ture to assert that the court of common pleas,
when it meets, on the second Monday of every
term, is not in session two months in the
term. This last term of the court, Judge
King adjourned his court over a month ago,
because he had not enough business to trans- |
